Allowed

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Smiriti Maharishi Sarin and Ors.

DRT21 Oct 2025TA/2602/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of a housing loan. Directing defendants to pay principal, interest, and costs, and authorizing execution through sale of the mortgaged flat to recover any shortfall.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.36,38,167.56 with pendentelite and future interest @9.35% per annum and costs; direction to sell Flat No. D-0603 for shortfall.

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Smiriti Maharishi… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 2602 of 2022

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No.2602 of 2022

¶5

Punjab and Sind Bank Hauz Qazi, Chawri Bazar Delhi-110006

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ms. Smriti Maharishi Sarin D/o Sh. Ashok Maharishi C-105, Sujjan Vihar, Sector-43, Galleria, DLF IV, Gurgaon, Haryana-122009

¶9

Sh. Arvind Raj Kaushik 24-C, Yusuf Sarai New Delhi-110016

¶10

M/s Rudra Buildwell Constructions Private Limited Through its Dircetors -Mrs. Manju Rani 309, Padma Tower-II Rajendra Place New Delhi

¶11

Also at:

¶12

Rudra Buildwell Constructions Private Limited CS-01, Fourth Floor, Ansal Plaza, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P.-201010 Defendants

¶13

Present: Sh.Sumeet Batra, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶14

Date of Reserve: 06.10.2025

¶15

Date of Pronouncement: 21.10.2025

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-III, Delhi on 22.02.2021 and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Sh.Praveen Kumar, authorized sd-

¶18

¶19

T.A. No. 2602 of 2022

¶20

representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.36,38,167.56 (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs Thirty Eight Thousand One Hundred Sixty Seven and paisa Fifty Six only) as on 11.02.2021 alongwith pendentelite and future interest @7.35% per annum with monthly rests plus penal interest @2% per annum from the date of filing this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1, the applicant bank sanctioned Housing loan for a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs only) on 26.06.2015 @10% interest per annum with monthly rests for purchase of under construction Flat no. D-0603, 6th floor, Block

¶22

KBNOWS Apartment, Plot no. 5B, Sector-161 Greater Noida West, Uttar Pradesh to be developed and constructed by defendant no.3. The defendant no.2 stood as guarantor for the housing loan facility sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1 by the applicant bank.

¶23

That in order to avail the housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 submitted loan application and executed Certificate of Execution of Documents, Promissory Note (Form No.14(R), Form No.106, Form No.103/291/412, Form No.200, Form No.15 Consent for Disclosures in favour of the applicant bank on 26.06.2015. The defendant no.2 executed Form No.256(RR) and Form No.16 towards applicant bank as well Form No.199 by defendant no.1 & 2 as guarnators.

¶24

Further, the defendant no.1, 3 executed Tripartite Agreement dated 06.06.2015 with the applicant bank whereby

¶25

Sd-

¶26

¶27

T.A. No. 2602 of 2022

¶28

the defendant no.3 undertaken that on receipt of entire consideration amount, they shall execute proper conveyance deed/sub lease deed in the name of defendant no.1 and shall deliver the conveyance deed/lease deed directly to the applicant bank and case of default or cancellation / termination, shall refund the entire loan amount within interest within 15 days to the applicant bank. It has been submitted by the applicant bank that the defendant no.3 issued NOC to create equitable mortgage as security on the subject Flat No.D-0603, 6th floor, Block D, KBNOWS Apartment, Plot No.5B, Sector-16, Greater Noida West, Uttar Pradesh.

¶29

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to deposit regular EMIs in the account to regularize the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 30.06.2018 and thereafter again on 01.01.2020 as per RBI guidelines and issued Legal Demand Notice dated 08.01.2020 but the defendants neglected the same. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶30

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 20.02.2024, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶31

¶32

¶33

T.A. No. 2602 of 2022

¶34

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Praveen Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as General Power of Attorney, Housing loan Application, Sanction Letter , Tripartite Agreement, Builder Buyers' Agreement, Allotment Letter, Certificate of Execution of Documents, Promissory Note, Form no.106, Form no.199, Form no.200, Form no.256(RR), Form no.15, Form no.16, Balance & Security Confirmation letter, Legal Demand Notice, Statement of Account marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/18.

¶35

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly approved.

¶36

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶37

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶38

ORDER

¶39

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.36,38,167.56 (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs Thirty Eight Thousand One Hundred Sixty Seven and Paisa Fifty Six only) as on 11.02.2021 together with pendentelite and future cd

¶40

¶41

T.A. No. 2602 of 2022

¶42

interest @9.35% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs; failing which the amount shall be recovered from sale of Flat No. D-0603, 6th floor, Block D, KBNOWS Apartment, Plot no.5B, Sector-16, Greater Noida West. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶43

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶44

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 19.12.2025.

¶45

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶46

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶47

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 21.10.2025

¶48

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Smiriti Maharishi Sarin and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Smiriti Maharishi Sarin and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab and Sind Bank versus M/S Vahe Guru International

Punjab National Bank versus Naman Jain and Ors.

Mohammad Fayyaz S/O Mohammad Ibrahim versus Idbi Bank Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Bhartu Ram Ashish Kumar

Murali Medicals versus Catholic Syrian Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Waseemraj Gafarsab Shilledar